The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-11-03
A WRIT OF ERROR DENIED
THE SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCES
IT'S DECISIONS.

WASHINGTON, NOV. 2.--Ihe decision of
,hs United States Supreme Court upon the
netition for a writ of error i'll the case of
the Chicago Anarchists was announced this
afternoon by Chief Justice Waite. The
Chief Justice began the reading at EOS and
finished it with the announcement of the
denial of the writ at l2:40 o'clock The
decision of the court was unanimous. Follow
ing is the text of the opinion. omitting
some of the citations of precedents
Supreme Court of the United States, October
trrn1 1887, ex parte In the matter Of August
spies Michael Schwah, Oscar Neebe. Samuel
iielden. Albert r. Parsons George Engel,
Adolph Fischer and Louis Lngg, petitioners,
application for the allowance of writ of
error to the Supreme Court of the State of
illinois, Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the
opinion of the court:
When. as in this case application is made
10 Us on the suggestion of one of our
number. to whom a similar application has
been previously addressed for the allowance of
a writ of error to the highest court Of a State,
under section 700 of the Revised Statutes, it is
our duty to ascertain not only whether
any question renewable here was made
aud decided in the proper court below, but
whether it is of a character TO justify us in
bringing the judgment here for re-examination.
IN our opinion the writ ought not to be allowed
by the court if it appears from fact of record
that the decision of a Federal question which is
complained Of was 50 plainly right as not to re-
quire argument, and especially If it is in accord
ance with our own we'll considered judgments in
similar cases. When under section of our rule
e a motion to affair is united with motion TO
dismiss for want of jurisdiction, the practice has
been to grant the motion to affair when the
question on which our jurisdiction depends was
20 manifestly decided right that the case ought
not TO be held for further argument. The pro-
prety of adopting similar rule upon motions
10 open court for the allowance of a writ is ap-
parent, for certainly we would not be justified
as a court in sending out writ to bring up for
review the Judgment Of the highest court of
state, when it is apparent on the face of
the record that 1t would be our duty to
grant the melton 10 affair as soon as
It was made in proper form. In the present
case we have had the benefit of argument in
support of the application, and while the coun-
sci have not deemed it their duty to go fully in
to the merits of the questions involved, they
have shown us distinctlywhat the decisions were
of which they complain, and how the question
arose. In this way we are able to determine as
court in session whether the errors alleged are
such to justify in bringing the case here for
review, We proceed, then, to consider what the
questions are on which, il it exists at all, our
jurisdiction depends The particular provisions
Of the constitution of the United States on
which the counsel rely are found in articles
4, 3, s and IA of the amendments CThese
amendments are here QuUtedl.
That the first ten articles of the amendment
were not intended to limit the powers of the
state governments in respect to their own citi-
zenS, but to operate m the national government
alone, was decided more than half a century
ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered
10 since
After citing long list of precedent deci-
sions, the court proceeds to say;
It was contended, however, in the argument
that though originally the first ten amend
ments we're adopted as limitations on Federal
power, yet in SO far as they secure and recog-
nize the fundamental rights common law
rigbts---of man, they make them privileges and
immunities of man as citizen of the United
States and cannot now be abridged by the State
under the fourteenth amendment" In other
words, while the ten amendments as limitations
on power only apply to the Fedora government
and not to States, yet in so far as they declare
or recognize the rights of persons, these
rights theirs. citizens of the United States,
and the fourteenth amendment as to such
rights limits State power as the ten amend
nents had limited Federal power" 1t is also
contended that the provision OF the four
teenth amendment, which declares that
no State shall deprive ''any person
of life, liberty or property without
due process of law" implies that every person
charged with crime in a State shall he entitled
TO trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be
compelled to testify against himself. The OBJ
I. That the statute of a State as construed by
the court deprived the petitioners of trial by an
impartial jury and
2 That Spies was compelled to give evidence
against himself
Before considering whether the constitution
Of the United states has the effect which is
claimed it is proper TO inquire whether the Fed
eral questions relied on in fact arise ON the fact
of this record, One statute to which objection
Is made was approved March IL, 1874. and has
he5n in force since July OF that year. The
complaints that the trial court, acting under
this statute and in accordance with its require
ments. compelled the petitioners against their
will to submit to trial by a Jury
that was not impartial, and thus deprived them
uf one OF the fundamental rights which they
had ClfiZpnS n limited StataS under the
national constitution, and if the sentence of the
court is carried into execution, they will be de-
prlved Of their lives without due process of
law. In Hopt VS.. Utah, 40 L. =, 439, it was
decided by this court that when a challenge hya
defendant in a criminal action to juror for bias,
actual or implied is disaowed aDd the juror is
toereupon peremptorly challenged by the de
tendant and excused and an impartial and com
petent juror is obtained in bis place no injury
was done the defendant, it, until the Jury is
completed, he has other peremptory challenges
which he can use.
And so in Hays VS.. Missouri, 10 u
s, II, it was said ''the right to challenge is
the right to reject not to select juror. If from
lnose who remain an impartial jury is obtained,
to4 constitutional right of the accused is main
tained'
OF the correctness of these rulings we enter
lam no doubt. We are, therefore, confined in
This case to rulings on challenges TO jurors who
actually sat az the trial OF these there were
nut two, Theodore Denker, the third juror who
was sworn, and II. T. Sanford, the last who was
CHiled ana sworn after all the peremptOry chal-
IenFes of the defendants had been exhausted
AT the trial the court construed the statute to
mean that although a juror called as jury
man may have formed an opinion based upon
fumor or upon newspaper statements,
nut has expressed no opiniou as to
me truth of newspaper statement,
ne is still qualified as juror
II he states that he can fairly and impaltially
render verdict thereon in accordance with the
law and evidence, and the court shall be satisfied
of the truth of such statement. 1t is not test
question whether q juror will have an opinion
which he has formed from newspapers changed
eased only upon account which may
iPre ne given by witness under OATH. Inter
lIeted in this way the statute is not materially
ulherent from that of the Territory of Utah
Ghlch we had under consideration in Hopt VS..
Itah and to which we then gave effect. AS
tnat was territorial statute passed by a Terrific
IIal Legislature for the government of
territory over which the United states
had exclusive jurisdiction, il came di.
me amendments. which guaranteed 10 Hopt
Irlal oy an impartial jury. No one at that time sug
Sested doubt Of the constitutiouality Of the stat
ute and IL was regarded both in territorial courts
ana here, as furnishing proper rule TO be OBJ
observed by a territorial court in enpanelling
an impartial jury in criminal case.
=, A similar statute was enacted in New YORK,
iNay 3, 1S72; in Michigan April II, 1879, and also
IN Nebraska in 1885, The constitutionaty OF
,ourt Of Appeals of that State in Stokes VS..
{oe People, decided June 10, 1873, aud 1t has
neen acted upon without objection ever since
90 tar as VIC have been able to discover no
1oubt has ever been entertained in Michigan or
Nenraska, Of the constitutonslity Of the stat